TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Nimbus India Appeal Dismissed, Breach of Obligations, Costs Imposed</h1> <h3>Nimbus Communications Ltd. Versus Prasar Bharti and Ors.</h3> Nimbus Communications Ltd. Versus Prasar Bharti and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Compliance with the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and associated rules.2. Obligations and breaches by Nimbus India and Nimbus Singapore regarding bank guarantees and contracts.3. Financial claims and counterclaims between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus entities.4. Arbitration and interim award issues, including inspection of records and equitable set-off.5. Limitation period for claims.Detailed Analysis:1. Compliance with the Sports Broadcasting Signals (Mandatory Sharing with Prasar Bharati) Act, 2007 and associated rules:The Act mandated content rights owners to share live broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati without advertisements, enabling re-transmission on Prasar Bharati’s networks. The revenue sharing terms were specified, with a 75:25 ratio for television and 50:50 for radio. The associated rules required a sealed bid procedure for marketing commercial time, with the higher bidder entitled to marketing rights and obligations to provide a bank guarantee and audited accounts.2. Obligations and breaches by Nimbus India and Nimbus Singapore regarding bank guarantees and contracts:Nimbus India and Nimbus Singapore, the highest bidders for several cricket series, failed to comply with the obligation to provide bank guarantees and execute contracts, unlike Prasar Bharati, which fulfilled its obligations. This non-compliance resulted in the jural relationship being governed solely by the Act and the Rules, without any arbitration clause, except for the India-Pakistan 2007 Series, where a contract with an arbitration clause was executed.3. Financial claims and counterclaims between Prasar Bharati and Nimbus entities:Prasar Bharati claimed amounts based on admitted liabilities for various series, with Nimbus entities owing Rs. 22,77,67,422/-. Nimbus India raised counterclaims, including adjustments for previous series and alleged dues, but failed to provide clear particulars or evidence for these claims. The Arbitral Tribunal directed Nimbus India to furnish a bank guarantee, which was not complied with, leading to an interim award.4. Arbitration and interim award issues, including inspection of records and equitable set-off:The Tribunal addressed Prasar Bharati’s claims and Nimbus India’s counterclaims, noting admissions of liability by Nimbus entities. Despite opportunities, Nimbus India did not secure the amount or comply with inspection requirements. The Tribunal passed an interim award based on admitted amounts, dismissing the plea of equitable set-off as the claims did not arise from the same transaction and required separate adjudication.5. Limitation period for claims:The Tribunal and the Court found no issue with the limitation period, as the dealings occurred from 2007 to 2009, and the arbitration agreement was entered into in 2011. The purported adjustments and admissions of liability extended the limitation period, making the claims timely.Conclusion:The Court dismissed Nimbus India’s appeal, affirming the interim award and highlighting the entities' breaches of obligations, lack of compliance with Tribunal directions, and the untenable nature of their counterclaims. Costs were imposed on Nimbus India in favor of Prasar Bharati.
TaxTMI 